Stimpson v O'Toole - [2022] QCA 194

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stimpson v O’Toole & Anor [2022] QCA 194

PARTIES:

EDEN ALICE STIMPSON
(applicant)
v
DANIEL PATRICK O’TOOLE
(first respondent)
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
ABN 15 000 122 850
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 14136 of 2021
DC No 140 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Unreported, 29 October 2021 (Jackson QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 May 2022

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ, Mullins JA and Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   Set aside the orders made by the primary judge on 29 October 2021.

4. Leave to the appellant pursuant to s 16 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) to amend the claim and the statement of claim in proceeding DC No 140 of 2021 in accordance with the drafts which comprise exhibit TI10 to the affidavit of Ms Ibraheem filed on 22 October 2021.

5.   The second respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the application before the primary judge, the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL MATTERS – STATUTES OF LIMITATION GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant’s partner died after being hit by a motor vehicle in October 2016 – where the respondent was the driver and the second respondent the CTP insurer – where the applicant gave a notice of claim (non-fatal injury) for nervous shock arising from the accident – where by consent in September 2019 an order was made in the District Court pursuant to s 57(2)(b) the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (the Act) giving leave to the applicant to commence a proceeding within the time specified in the order – where the applicant gave a notice of fatal injury claim in July 2020 in respect of a dependency claim arising out of the accident – where the applicant filed the claim and statement of claim in May 2021 within the time period specified in the order – where the second respondent rejected the applicant’s position that the order protected the limitation period for all claims made by the applicant arising from the accident – where the applicant filed an application seeking a declaration that the order applied to the fatal injury claim pursuant to r 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) or s 16 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) (CPA) or to amend the claim pursuant to r 376 or s 16 – where the primary judge dismissed the applicant’s application – as the definition in the Act of “personal injury” includes a fatal injury, whether it follows that the definition of motor vehicle accident claim means a claim for damages that can extend the one claim to cover both a claim for damages for personal injury and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stimpson v O'Toole

Details

AGLC: Stimpson v O'Toole [2022] QCA 194
Case: [2022] QCA 194
Decision Date: 7 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Stimpson v O’Toole concerns a motor vehicle accident in October 2016, where the applicant's partner was fatally injured. The respondent was the driver of the vehicle, and the second respondent was the compulsory third-party insurer. The applicant initially lodged a claim for nervous shock in September 2019, following which an order was made under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) allowing the applicant to commence proceedings within a specified period. After the partner's death, the applicant filed a dependency claim in July 2020 and subsequently, in May 2021, filed the relevant claim and statement of claim within the time period specified in the order. The second respondent disputed the applicant's claim that the order protected the limitation period for all claims arising from the accident, leading the applicant to seek a declaration or amendment of the claim to include the dependency claim. The primary judge dismissed the application, prompting the applicant to appeal.

The key legal issues in the appeal were whether the definition of a motor vehicle accident claim under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) encompasses both claims for personal injury and dependency claims, and whether the District Court order extended to cover the fatal injury claim. Additionally, the appeal addressed whether the primary judge erred in interpreting the reference to "a relevant period of limitation" in rule 376(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) as pertaining to the limitation period of three years for the dependency claim rather than the altered period of limitation as a result of the order. Furthermore, the appeal questioned whether the primary judge correctly applied section 16 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) in relation to the application to amend the claim to include the dependency claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granting leave to the applicant to amend the claim and the statement of claim to include the dependency claim. The Court found that the primary judge had misconstrued the reference to "a relevant period of limitation" in rule 376(1) of the UCPR, and did not properly consider section 16 of the CPA in the context of the application to amend the claim. The Court held that the definition of a motor vehicle accident claim under the Act could indeed encompass both personal injury and dependency claims, and that the order extended to cover the fatal injury claim. Consequently, the orders made by the primary judge were set aside, and the second respondent was directed to pay the appellant’s costs of the application before the primary judge, the application for leave to appeal, and the appeal.

This decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and rules when dealing with limitation periods and claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, particularly in the context of fatal injuries and dependency claims. The Court's ruling ensures that the applicant's right to pursue a dependency claim is preserved and that the statutory provisions are applied in a manner consistent with the legislative intent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Set aside the orders made by the primary judge on 29 October 2021.

4. Leave to the appellant pursuant to s 16 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) to amend the claim and the statement of claim in proceeding DC No 140 of 2021 in accordance with the drafts which comprise exhibit TI10 to the affidavit of Ms Ibraheem filed on 22 October 2021.

5. The second respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the application before the primary judge, the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Stimpson v O’Toole & Anor [2022] QCA 194
PARTIES:	EDEN ALICE STIMPSON (applicant) v DANIEL PATRICK O’TOOLE (first respondent) ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 15 000 122 850 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 14136 of 2021 DC No 140 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Unreported, 29 October 2021 (Jackson QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 May 2022
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ, Mullins JA and Boddice J
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Set aside the orders made by the primary judge on 29 October 2021. 4. Leave to the appellant pursuant to s 16 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) to amend the claim and the statement of claim in proceeding DC No 140 of 2021 in accordance with the drafts which comprise exhibit TI10 to the affidavit of Ms Ibraheem filed on 22 October 2021. 5. The second respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the application before the primary judge, the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL MATTERS – STATUTES OF LIMITATION GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant’s partner died after being hit by a motor vehicle in October 2016 – where the respondent was the driver and the second respondent the CTP insurer – where the applicant gave a notice of claim (non-fatal injury) for nervous shock arising from the accident – where by consent in September 2019 an order was made in the District Court pursuant to s 57(2)(b) the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (the Act) giving leave to the applicant to commence a proceeding within the time specified in the order – where the applicant gave a notice of fatal injury claim in July 2020 in respect of a dependency claim arising out of the accident – where the applicant filed the claim and statement of claim in May 2021 within the time period specified in the order – where the second respondent rejected the applicant’s position that the order protected the limitation period for all claims made by the applicant arising from the accident – where the applicant filed an application seeking a declaration that the order applied to the fatal injury claim pursuant to r 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) or s 16 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) (CPA) or to amend the claim pursuant to r 376 or s 16 – where the primary judge dismissed the applicant’s application – as the definition in the Act of “personal injury” includes a fatal injury, whether it follows that the definition of motor vehicle accident claim means a claim for damages that can extend the one claim to cover both a claim for damages for personal injury and…